Again, you're trying to re-frame the debate so I'm not going bother any more. I never once said the process was reliant upon the UN.

Its not a reframed debate...it is the issue in exact and precise reference. I'm not sure how simpler it can be spelled out. ICANN using WIPO is like a private person renting out a government building for some event. That it is owned by the government is irrelevant...its used because it is a building. If not this building another building can be used. There is no special characterisation or power WIPO/UN hold for the issue of sovereignty to even be raised - with respect to Paul's objections about the UN.

So what you're saying is that I'll find papers addressing this serious scholarly debate in peer-reviewed journals?

I'm not talking about mere clashes between UN conventions and country's laws, by the way. I'm talking about substance to Paul's specific statements;

Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN's own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren't interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Advocating the possibility of a genuine world government is a very different thing. Where's the support for what he says?

Yes, I'm sure you'll find them. The issue of national sovereignty and the UN's powers are not mere triflings. They're big issues which people have been debating since its' inception. That is the very core of the sovereignty argument: that the power to govern is going to the UN through circumventions of State constitutions.

As for Paul's comments; whilst they may sound conspiratorial, they are indeed factual. It's akin to saying that special interests/certain corporations are lobbying for power in government to rule it for their own needs. The former is more controversial simply because of the reverence people tend to hold the UN with - and their ignorance of the implications of its powers. The latter is no longer controversial because people see it staring them in the face.

I personally don't see it as even important for one to agree with whether they think there is a detailed plan to create a world government. In the end, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...it's a duck.

Who says they have to support what he says? In two minutes I've found two that argue for a world government through the United Nations.

Even then, its irrelevant. What is non-factual in that quote? There is plenty of material on the UN influencing legislation of its members. There are UN courts. There is a UN army. To give the UN power it has to get it from the members which ultimately means threatening national sovereignty. Where here is contentious or non-factual? I don't understand your point.

1.The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

And Chapter VII governs the use of the security council which there's nothing to suggest would ever be used in the US.

UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it.

Opinion and directly contradicted by the UN on its website. I only bring that up not because I know for sure what they're thinking but because Paul himself says to look on the website.

They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans.

What plans? Who's 'they'? The UN as a whole? Putin? Hitler?

American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Where's the evidence that the US is headed down a 'UN path'? What does the 'UN path' even really mean? A central government? Where the proof?

The whole thing is rhetoric and that includes the full text where the quote comes from. Absolutely substance free, literally speaking much but saying nothing. Without evidence, it's worthless.

The United Nations or World Government by Mcclintock, Robert Mills
World Government via the United Nations by Eichelberger, Clark M
RETHINKING THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM: PROSPECTS FOR A WORLD FEDERATION OF NATIONS by Murithi, Tim
The United Nations and the New World Order by Gershman, Carl
THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER by AREND, ANTHONY CLARK

I'm sure you'll find more if you try more queries. I'm actually writing a 10,000 word paper so I don't have time to do your researching for you.

1.The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

And Chapter VII governs the use of the security council.

I have to defer to Paul on where in the site he thinks they're admitting this. I can't be arsed to go through every UN page or declaration to know what he is exactly talking about.

Opinion and directly contradicted by the UN on its website. I only bring that up not because I know for sure what they're thinking but because Paul himself says to look on the website.

I don't think this has any relevance for what he is saying - other than the fact that he has said it is on the site. It's not of any real importance IMO. He is making a statement on the mechanisations which are bringing about the same thing - desired or otherwise.

As if JP Morgan Chase is going to say on their site: "we took your [TARP] money for our good, not yours."

What plans? Who's 'they'?

Those who would desire a world government.

Where's the evidence that the US is headed down a 'UN path'? What does the 'UN path' even really mean? A central government? Where the proof?

The whole thing is rhetoric and that includes the full text where the quote comes from. Absolutely substance free, literally speaking much but saying nothing. Without evidence, it's worthless.

From the very moment a state becomes a member and subjects itself to UN conventions they're giving away power. This is not controversial statement at all. It's a definitive act.

One could disagree with his assertion that America will lose its national sovereignty through time, through the UN; but such a contention is hardly 'substance free' or 'speaking without saying nothing'. It is the complete opposite, as aforesaid; the issue of sovereignty is a big issue that is debated amongst legal scholars.

You've done your best to reframe or digress into a discussion of whether people agree with Paul in the sense that there are people actively pursuing a world government. The discussion that is important is whether Paul has reasons for thinking as such - as you claimed he had none. You've done this because for the former it is hard to prove - and people don't write scholarly articles on things they can't begin to prove unless they took a survey of everyone involved in the UN. But the contention that the UN takes away sovereignty is one that is widely debated.

At worst you disagree with Paul that there is a group of people actively involved in initiating the kind of world government which would be a threat to the sovereignty of nations. That he has reasons to think as such, and that evidence exists for this, is now your job to research - since you claimed he had no evidence for fearing the loss of sovereignty. Don't worry, it won't be too hard to find.

You guys are spending way too much time debating whether Ron Paul is a hypocrite or not by trying to obtain the rights to a URL.

Come on, just say it out loud. You are debating whether one man is a hypocrite by trying to get a URL... for an internet website... for Ron Paul... ffs

LOL, well, people, from the left or right of the spectrum, just love to fish for something to point to in an attempt to show Ron Paul as someone who is a hypocrite. Whether you agree with the guy on his positions or not, he just doesn't waver on his beliefs. And this example is just absurd for anyone that knows better.

But you have to take a step back and look at the standard he is being compared with. This is being used as reason to question Paul. The last one was whether he was billing his flights correctly. Now, the current President has basically lied about most of his platform - i.e. getting rid of Gitmo, ending wars, protecting civil liberties - but Ron Paul is getting hammered for a private matter. Do you laugh or mourn?

One of the first refs you quoted specifically states a voluntary international system and the second one is 60+ years old. ****, eugenics and phrenology papers were still getting accepted back then.

Originally Posted by Ikki

At worst you disagree with Paul that there is a group of people actively involved in initiating the kind of world government which would be a threat to the sovereignty of nations. That he has reasons to think as such, and that evidence exists for this, is now your job to research - since you claimed he had no evidence for fearing the loss of sovereignty. Don't worry, it won't be too hard to find.

haha, no. That's not how it works. There's plenty of evidence against what he said. For example, the US is not a subsidiary of The UN (inc) or a dictatorship by any reasonable standards, it's still a sovereign nation and last I checked, there were no blue-hatted soldiers marching on Washington forcing Obama to give up the presidency. The burden of proof is on Paul to show where things are going. He has his reasons, does he? Why isn't he providing them in an explicit, open manner?

As for the attention this is getting, please. This has blown up the last couple of days and will go away fairly quickly. Obama's been getting hammered by foreign and US-based newspapers, op-eds and on TV about his drone program, guns, not closing Guantanamo and his war on whistle blowers for the past year at least (and rightly bloody so). The pressure doesn't bear comparison.

The Times told of a Muslim cleric in Yemen named Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber, standing in a village mosque denouncing al Qaeda. It was a brave thing to do  a respected tribal figure, arguing against terrorism. But two days later, when he and a police officer cousin agreed to meet with three al Qaeda members to continue the argument, all five men  friend and foe  were incinerated by an American drone attack. The killings infuriated the village and prompted rumors of an upwelling of support in the town for al Qaeda, because, the Times reported, such a move is seen as the only way to retaliate against the United States.